G/TBT/W/774  
 
11 November 2022  
(22-8446) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: English  
 
 
INDIA – QUALITY CONTROL ORDERS (STC ID 224, 630, 632, 646 ) 
TECHNICAL STATEMENT BY CANADA, THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN,  
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU, AND THE UNITED STATES TO THE  
COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE  
16–18 NOVEMBER  2022 
The following communication, dated 11 November 2022, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Canada , The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu , and 
the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Canada, the Se parate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, and t he United 
States acknowledge India 's goal to implement a wider range of technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures through various quality control orders, which have been pu blished and 
notified to the WTO. We seek to engage with India to ensure that the implementation of these 
measures is conducted in ways that are consistent with India 's WTO obligations.  
 
The comments below highlight our ongoing concerns that quality contro l orders across a variety of 
sectors, including toys, chemicals, ICT products, and automobile parts, are seriously concerning as 
it relates to India 's obligations under the TBT Agreement.  We note that, since 2019, 19 Members 
have raised 35 specific trade concerns with India. Of these concerns, more than a third  appear to 
be related to quality control orders, and more than two-thirds  are concerns that Members have 
raised more than once. In fact, Members have raised more than half of these 35 specific trade 
concerns at least three times. In fact, since May 2020, the number of STCs Members have raised 
with India have made up at least 13 % of the total number of STCs addressed in each meeting. Most 
recently, at the July 2022 meeting, 18 out of 83 STCs were issues raised with India, more than 20% 
of the agenda of STCs. In the past several Committee meetings, we have noticed that India 's floo r 
statements often are not entirely responsive to the questions posed by Members, and this lack of 
responsiveness has not contributed to making progress on these issues and leads to an ever -growing 
list of specific trade concerns.  
 
For example, in respons e to the U.S. July 2022 statement on India 's Plastic Waste Management 
(Amendment) Rules, 2021 and 2022, India provided the same response it had given in November 
2021 to Korea, which had raised separate concerns with a previous iteration of the measure. 
Consequently, stakeholders ' concerns and requests for clarification remain unanswered and 
unaddressed.1 Similarly, in response to Members ' statements questioning the requirements and 
inflexibility of India 's Toys Quality Control Order, India has repeatedly responded with the same 
language describing its Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (Conformity Assessment) Regulations, 
2018, which does not answer any of the nuanced, urgent queries in Members ' statements.2 We 
encourage India to increase its transparency a nd ensure that its floor statements take into account 
Members ' issues and questions , explain what actions India has taken vis -à-vis the  concerns  raised, 
and what future actions India will take to address these concerns .    
 
 
1 TBT ID 719  
2 TBT ID 587  G/TBT/W/774  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Because of the impact that these issues have across sectors, we have organized our comments on 
India's various quality control orders by common theme, and provide recommendations for a path 
forward for each area as follows:  
1  RECOGNITION OF INTERNATIONALLY ACCREDITED LABS (ILAC)  
1.1.  We th ank India for recently extending recognition of test results from laboratories accredited 
by International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) for certain products until 30 June 2023 . 
1.2.  We recognize India 's efforts to increase its domestic laboratory  testing capacity and to 
strengthen its testing and certification activities. We also understand that BIS possesses the 
authority to recognize laboratories for the purposes of standardization and quality control, including 
institutions outside of India.  H owever, the process through which institutions can obtain recognition 
is unclear and lacks transparency. We remain unaware of any laboratory that has obtained such 
recognition.   
1.3.  We ask that India reinstate full and permanent recognition of results from in ternationally 
accredited labs. We also request that India provide greater clarity and transparency regarding the 
steps laboratories can take to obtain such recognition from BIS. Currently, exporters whose products 
have already been certified by accredited international laboratories report that results from these 
laboratories are not being accepted as proof of compliance with the requirements of the Compulsory 
Registration Order (CRO) and the Mandatory Testing and Certification of Telecommunications 
Equipmen t (MTCTE) scheme. As a result, exporters are forced to undertake duplicative testing. We 
urge India to utilize the benefits of ILAC membership and accept foreign laboratory test results from 
ILAC-accredited labs as proof of compliance with Indian requireme nts. 
1.4.  We appreciate India 's efforts in conducting stakeholder consultations with interested industry 
members. We continue to remain interested in engaging with India on ensuring that international 
laboratories, including those abroad accredited by ILAC, can  be recognized by BIS to prevent 
duplicative testing.  
2  DIFFICULTIES WITH FOREIGN INSPECTIONS  
2.1.  Largely due to travel restrictions caused by  the COVID -19 pandemic, companies outside of 
India have often been  unable to comply with existing quality control order s' requirements for a 
foreign inspection due to the lack of virtual audits or other compliance alternatives . This raise s 
serious  concerns about the treatment of foreign suppliers, which are subject to various conformity 
assessment procedures requiring fore ign inspection across sectors, including automotives, 
chemicals, and toys.  
2.2.  Our understanding is that, although BIS does not have existing provisions for virtual audits, it 
has the statutory authority  to both develop guidelines for such audits and to carry  out alternatives 
to physical inspections on an "as needed " basis. During the November 2021 WTO TBT Committee 
meeting, the Indian delegate stated that the Government was considering alternatives for in -person 
inspections in response to a request regarding the use of remote assessment in conducting factory 
inspection for pl ain copier paper.  
2.3.  As India continues to expand use of, and mandate compliance to, various quality control orders , 
we urge India to consider alternatives to  these  highly burdensome  measures while giving India 
adequate confidence that products conform to th e applicable technical regulations or standards . Our 
industry members have continued to report that the appointment and nomination of auditors 
remains time -consuming, and that audit arrangements have been further complicated by COVID -19 
testing and passpor t-related considerations.  We hope that BIS has the flexibility to allow for timely 
inspections of goods and suppliers most affected by the disruptions, even if on an ad hoc  or 
temporary basis . 
2.4.  In the case of toys, a total halt in exports by U.S. and Canadi an companies occurred, and trade 
continues to be greatly impacted. India continues to require testing of every import shipment of toys 
in addition to on -site sampling at manufacturing facility, with those samples then shipped to India 
for in -country testin g. Situations like these not only add to the cost of the importation process but 
also lead to delays. We also remain unclear as to the objective of India 's requirement that toy G/TBT/W/774  
 
- 3 - 
 
  manufacturing sites must be inspected by BIS personnel to verify, among other t hings, production 
processes and plant layout, and to collect product samples. To date, no U.S. or Canadian toy 
company has secured an inspection of a manufacturing facility . 
2.5.  Lastly, w e also urge India to consider virtual and/or alternative options for insp ections for those 
products that are low risk, thereby facilitating, rather than restricting, trade. We are open to working 
with India on identifying creative solutions to ensure that exporters are  able to comply with quality 
control orders'  requirements  for so long as foreign inspections remain unavailable or are otherwise 
not available in an expeditious manner . 
3  INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS  
3.1.  Because India has adopted its own national standards, rather than using relevant international 
standards, we urge India to ensure that its national standards keep pace with the relevant 
international standards as the latter change and are updated over time.  
3.2.  This is especially important where compliance with previously voluntary India -specific 
standards has become mandatory. In  these situations, U.S. companies testing to international 
standards must have their products undergo duplicative testing, as is the current case for 
polyethylene products and toys, which are tested to Indian Standard IS 7328:2020 (polyethylene) 
and Indian  Standards IS 9873 and IS5644 (toys).  
3.3.  We encourage India to consider establishing a process by which Indian standards can be 
updated so that they are aligned with the related international standards over time.  Divergences 
between standards can not only re sult in products which are less safe, but also that Indian standards 
may not necessarily meet societal and market needs as reflected by international standards. Has 
India considered ways to ensure that Indian standards are regularly updated to ensure they reflect 
the latest scientific and technological changes and safety considerations?  
4  E-LABELING  
4.1.  We welcome the decision of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers to further delay 
implementation of the Quality Control Order on polyethylene until 3 October 2022.  
4.2.  We appreciate India 's work with stakeholders to find a less burdensome labelling  solution that 
would satisfy the regulatory objective s of the polyethylene quality control order. For example,  we 
understand that  e-labels can provide the full range of t echnical information typically required by 
regulators  and are increasingly used in the ICT and healthcare sector s. 
4.3.  Can India provide an update on whether the proposed e -labels satisfy the Quality Control 
Order 's designation code requirements?   
5  ADEQUATE TRANSITION TIME  
5.1.  We reiterate our appreciation to India for providing timely extensions to certain  quality control 
orders  and measures, such as  the Polyethylene Quality Control Order and Phases III and IV of the 
MTCTE scheme so that our industry members have the necessary time to adapt their products or 
methods of production to the new  requirements.  
5.2.  We encourage India to provide adequate transition time for the implementation of QCOs and 
to continue to announce su ch extensions at the earliest possible opportunity.  
 
__________